Planning and Zoning Board

FINAL MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD COMMISSION CHAMBERS 5 2020 WILTON DRIVE, WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 33305 Life's Just Better ere MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020- 7:00P.M. 7 8 MEMBERS ATTENDANCE 9 Don D'Arminio, Chair p 10 Nick Berry, Vice Chair p 11 Peter Flint p 12 Daniel Keester-O'Mills p 13 Richard Safaty p 14 Brad Sterl p 15 Tim Theisen p 16 Jeb Shafer (alternate) p 17 18 Staff 19 Mike Cirullo, Assistant City Attorney 20 Roberta Moore, Community Development Services Director 21 Evy Kalus, City Planner 22 Brigitte Chiappetta , Recording Secretary, Prototype, Inc. 23 24 I. Call to Order 25 26 Chair D'Arminio called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 27 28 II. Roll Call 29 30 Roll was called by Ms. Chiappetta. It was noted a quorum was present. 31 32 Ill. Pledge of Allegiance 33 34 IV. Approval of Minutes 35 36 None. 37 38 Chair D'Arminio advised that a Quasi-Judicial Item regarding vacation of right-of-way 39 would not be heard at tonight's meeting . 40 41 Assistant City Attorney Mike Cirullo explained the quasi-judicial process , stating that 42 those wishing to speak on any application should raise their right hand and be sworn in . 43 Mr. Cirullo performed the swearing in for the hearing . 44 45 Chair D'Arminio recognized that City Commissioner Paul Rolli was present at tonight's 46 meeting .  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 2 1 2 V. Public Comments 3 4 Tom Russell , 809 NE 20 Drive, stated that he would like to see a nearby vacant lot on 5 Dixie Highway developed , and for the City to be compensated for this lot. He estimated 6 that the property is worth approximately thirty-six dollars eighty-one cents ($36 .81) per 7 foot. The most recent offer for this property was for five hundred ninety-nine thousand 8 dollars ($599 ,000) , which is less than its estimated worth. He recommended that the 9 City have this property appraised before selling it. 10 11 VI. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing 12 13 a) V 19-04 14 James McBride 15 616 NW 28 Court 16 Wilton Manors, FL 33311 17 18 James McBride, property owner, is requesting a variance of Article 020-060 of 19 the City of Wilton Manors' Unified Land Development Regulations (ULDRs) to 20 allow a side yard setback of 3 feet in lieu of 7.5 feet for a carport at the west side 21 property line for the property located at 616 NW 28 Court. 22 23 Applicant 24 Jack Harold , Co-Applicant, explained that he and Mr. McBride had applied for a permit 25 to install a carport on the western side of their property. The original carport attached to 26 the home was enclosed as a storage room . The contractor responsible for taking 27 measurements used an out-of-date survey of the property, which resulted in an error in 28 measurement from the east side of the home. A City inspection led to the discovery that 29 the new carport structure is within three (3) feet of the property line. 30 31 Mr. Harold continued that the new carport extends approximately four (4) inches over its 32 support beams. The neighboring property owners have provided a letter stating they do 33 not take issue with the encroachment. 34 35 Questions of Applicant 36 Board Member Theisen requested clarification of the distance of the proposed carport 37 from the neighboring property as shown on drawings submitted with the permit 38 application. Mr. Harold replied that this showed the measurement from the original 39 carport. The contractor responsible for installing the new carport did not follow this 40 drawing . 41 42 Mr. Harold further clarified that he and Mr. McBride were responsible for enclosing the 43 original carport, as they needed additional storage space . They later determined that a 44 structure was necessary to cover their car(s) in inclement weather.  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 3 1 2 Vice Chair Berry asked if the contractor responsible for building the new carport had 3 visited the Applicants' property. Mr. Harold replied that the contractor was responsible 4 for measurement and installation of the structure, and procured the permits for the work. 5 The Applicants were not aware of any issues with the construction until it was complete. 6 The contractor was not present at tonight's meeting . 7 8 Board Member Keester-O'Mills noted that the variance application filed by the 9 Applicants included a letter describing what had occurred . He explained that in order to 10 approve a variance, the Board must determine that an applicant has met the variance 11 standards outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Harold replied that this was the Applicants' 12 first experience with permitting or variance procedures. 13 14 Board Member Keester-O'Mills suggested that the Applicants may wish to seek deferral 15 until they can address the required variance criteria listed in the Staff Report. He 16 concluded that these criteria are not addressed by the Applicant's letter and there are 17 no accompanying backup materials to show how they are met. 18 19 Vice Chair Berry further explained that a variance must not be a "self-created hardship." 20 He noted that the hardship in this case appeared to be self-created , and reiterated that 21 the Board is bound by the Unified Land Development Regulations (ULDR) criteria 22 required for variance approval. He recommended deferral of the Item so the Applicants 23 may address the necessary criteria . 24 25 Board Member Flint pointed out that the Applicants received a City-issued permit, and 26 felt there should be checks and balances that could lead to a solution that is acceptable 27 to the Applicants, their neighbors, and the City. He proposed that the Applicants reach 28 out to Staff to determine if there may be another Code mechanism that would justify a 29 variance in this case. 30 31 Further discussion by the Board members addressed the survey, which states the 32 carport is twelve point six seven (12 .67) feet from the property line, although the actual 33 distance is three (3) feet. Board Member Theisen pointed out that the contractor did not 34 build what was approved by the permit, which he felt constituted fraud ; however, there 35 is nothing in the ULDR that would allow the City to grant a variance in a case of fraud . 36 37 Mr. Harold stated that he felt the issue was not fraud but an honest mistake. He 38 provided additional drawings to the Board for review, including a survey done in 2016, 39 which was before the Applicants enclosed the original carport. Mr. Harold further 40 clarified that one (1) individual representing the contractor's company took the survey 41 and a different individual constructed the carport. 42 43 Staff  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page4 1 City Planner Evy Kalus explained that the Applicants requested a variance of Article 20- 2 60 of the UDLR to allow a side yard setback of three (3) feet rather than seven point five 3 (7 .5) feet for an existing carport on the west side of the property. 4 5 On July 19, 2017 , a building permit was submitted for the conversion of an existing 6 carport into storage. This project was finalized on November 28 , 2017. On September 7 16, 2019, a building permit was issued for a new carport on the subject property. On 8 November 6, 2019 , the City's Structural Inspector failed the new carport, as it was not 9 constructed according to plan. The drawings submitted with the building permit for the 10 new carport were inaccurate: the new carport was directly adjacent to the former 11 carport, within three (3) feet of the property line. 12 13 Ms. Kalus reviewed the three criteria required for a variance, wh ich include the 14 following: 15 • Special conditions of the land or building as well as a requirement that the 16 hardship not be self-created 17 • Must be the least variance necessary in order to achieve the Applicant's goal 18 • The va riance must be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood 19 20 The lack of a carport would not deprive the Applicants of reasonable use of their land or 21 property, as the site continues to meet City parking requirements and the new ca rport 22 cou ld have been constructed parallel to the house instead . The building permit issued to 23 the Applicants met Code standards; however, the information submitted with the permit 24 was not accurate. Based on the ULDR criteria , Staff recommended denial of the request 25 due to the lack of both special circumstance and necessity. 26 27 Questions for Staff 28 Vice Chair Berry asked if the City performed an inspection on the site prior to November 29 2019 . Ms. Moore confirmed that there was a structural inspection on October 30 , 2019, 30 which approved the carport's isolated footers . Vice Chair Berry asserted that th is 31 changes the case, as the City's inspection error allowed the Applicants to continue with 32 the project in an area three (3) feet from the property line. 33 34 Ms. Moore clarified that the structural inspection was not intended to verify the location 35 of setbacks , as it is not a zoning inspection. It was noted , however, that the structural 36 inspector who approved the footers also failed the carport. Ms. Kalus added that the 37 structural inspection did not review the setbacks: when the structural inspector 38 discussed the project with Staff, it was noted that the project did not meet zoning 39 requirements . The project failed for not having been constructed to plan . 40 41 Board Member Theisen asked if Staff or the Board were aware of the history beh ind the 42 current setback requirements , such as whether they addressed a safety or 43 ingress/egress issue. Ms. Kalus replied that theoretically, setbacks are intended to 44 provide separation between uses and property.  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 5 1 2 Ms. Kalus explained that when she reviews an item , she checks the submitted drawings 3 to determine whether there is a need for further exploration or it meets requirements. 4 Additional research is not typically done unless there is an issue. Ms. Moore added that 5 the neighboring property at 624 NW 28 Court has a carport that is nearly identical to the 6 Applicants' carport. Board Member Safaty felt there should be a process by which Staff 7 looks at a property and its survey to determine whether or not there are violations 8 before granting a new permit. 9 10 Ms. Moore explained that she has discussed this with the City Attorney's Office prior to 11 the variance issue. She agreed that research should be done before Staff signs off on a 12 permit to determine if additional work has been done on a property as well as whether 13 or not its survey is current. She noted, however, that this can create a financial issue for 14 an Applicant if s/he has to obtain an updated survey. Surveys submitted as part of a 15 building permit application must be current. The error in this case can be traced back to 16 the lack of a revised survey following the work done in 2017. 17 18 Board Member Flint asked what would have to be done to the Applicants' carport if the 19 variance is denied. Ms. Moore replied that the structure would have to be demolished at 20 the homeowners' expense. 21 22 Public Comments 23 At this time Chair D'Arminio opened public comment, which he closed upon receiving no 24 input. 25 26 Board Member Theisen asked if this Application had been discussed with the structural 27 inspector who had inspected and passed the footers without noticing their location. Ms. 28 Moore replied that she would like to defer this Item until the March 2020 meeting in 29 order to speak with this individual and obtain more information . 30 31 The Board further discussed the Application , including whether or not the City was 32 negligent and contributed to this issue, as well as what was an appropriate response in 33 this case . Vice Chair Berry noted that multiple parties made mistakes, including the 34 homeowners, the contractor, and the City. 35 36 Ms. Moore advised that if the Board denies the variance, the Applicants must wait a 37 year before bringing forward another request. She reiterated her request for deferral if 38 denial was likely, as this would give her time to discuss the issue further with the 39 property owners. 40 41 Board Member Theisen asserted that the City's mistake does not mean a 42 nonconforming structure should be allowed to stand . Chair D'Arminio noted that there 43 may be contributory negligence on the City's part, as an inaccurate survey was  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 6 1 accepted and the structural inspector had approved the footers. He also found it unfair 2 that the Applicants would bear the full cost burden of these errors. 3 4 Board Member Flint pointed out that the structure in question is an open carport, which 5 is less intrusive than an enclosed structure, and is screened with fencing and 6 landscaping. He estimated that there may be several more similarly nonconforming 7 structures throughout the neighborhood and the City. 8 9 Motion made by Vice Chair Berry, seconded by Board Member Sterl , to approve 10 Variance 19-04. 11 12 Board Member Keester-O'Mills asked if a subsequent property owner might be able to 13 enclose the carport, should the variance be granted. Assistant City Attorney Mike Cirullo 14 recommended that the Board make the open structure a condition of approval in order 15 to prevent any issues in the future . 16 17 Board Member Keester-O 'Mills suggested an amendment to the motion to include a 18 provision that the carport not be enclosed in the future. Vice Chair Berry amended his 19 motion as follows: that the carport may not be enclosed and [improvements] only 20 limited to maintenance. 21 22 Attorney Cirullo further clarified that if the variance is granted, the structure will be 23 considered to be conforming and can be reconstructed if it is damaged or destroyed in 24 the event of fire, hurricane, or other disaster. 25 26 Motion made by Vice Chair Berry, seconded by Board Member Sterl , to approve 27 Variance 19-04, subject to the carport never being enclosed . 28 29 Attorney Cirullo clarified that this case would not establish a precedent, as the variance 30 is tied to the specific property. 31 32 In a roll call vote, the motion passed 4-3 (Chair D'Arminio, Board Member Keester- 33 O'Mills, and Board Member Theisen dissenting). 34 35 The Board took a brief recess from 8:18p .m. to 8:24p .m. 36 37 VII. Public Hearing 38 39 a. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations , Article 25- Accessory 40 Uses and Buildings . 41 b. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations , Article 45 - 42 Supplementary Height, Bulk and Yard Regulations . 43 c. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations , Article 50 - 44 Supplemental Use Regulations .  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 7 1 d. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 135- Off-Street 2 Parking . 3 e. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations , Article 150 - 4 Landscaping Requirements. 5 f. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations , Article 155 - General 6 Development Standards. 7 g. Amendment to Unified Land Development Regulations, Article 170 - Wilton 8 Manors Green Building Program . 9 10 Staff 11 Ms. Moore explained that the seven (7) Code Amendments proposed above are related 12 to climate resiliency. If the Board makes a positive recommendation , the Amendments 13 will be scheduled to go before the City Commission for first and second readings . 14 15 Sandra Lee and Robert Collins of Calvin , Giordano and Associates provided a 16 presentation on the proposed Amendments. They are proposed as part of a new Code 17 Section , Article 50, which will provide for resiliency uses. These are emerging uses 18 related to community resiliency technologies , including carbon sequestration , water 19 storage, biofuels , solar collection arrays, distribution wind farms , and other emerging 20 renewable energy systems . 21 22 Resiliency uses are principal uses on a parcel that provide services beyond that parcel , 23 which distinguishes them from items such as green buildings, features , or walls . Code 24 will include the capacity for the City to recognize and approve these resiliency uses. The 25 Amendment to Article 25 includes green building features as an accessory use in all 26 zoning districts. These features are specific to and serve an individual project, such as 27 green walls , green roofs , electric vehicle charging stations , and other systems . They 28 would be allowed in all zoning districts. 29 30 Another change was an update of Code to allow for the establishment of standards for 31 fencing on vacant parcels . The portion of Article 135 which deals with off-street parking 32 would now include a new section providing for future adaptability and reuse of parking 33 garages. Should a parking garage be proposed within the City, it must be constructed in 34 a way that ensures it can be adapted for other uses. 35 36 Article 45 was amended to address photovoltaic panels, water heater systems , green 37 roofs , and wind turbines , all of which could potentially be placed on the roofs of 38 build ings. Article 155 will include a new subsection that requires all outdoor lighting to 39 be Energy Star/LED lighting . Tree removal and replacement language was added to 40 address compl iance with a recently adopted Florida Statute. 41 42 Amendments were added to Article 150 to increase the percentage of native plants 43 required , add and remove some types of plants, and incorporate "Florida-friendly" 44 concepts. All references to sod were replaced with turf in order to remove conflicts with  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 8 1 the use of synthetic turf. New sections address synthetic turf and set standards for its 2 use, as well as green walls, green roofs , and vegetable gardens. 3 4 The Green Building Code program was updated , with a "point space" program through 5 which points can be achieved through the incorporation of green design features or by 6 obtaining green building certifications. This is an optional program that provides a menu 7 from which individuals may choose certain features . 8 9 Questions of Staff 10 Board Member Flint requested clarification of Article 150-260, which addresses the use 11 of artificial plants in a green wall. Ms. Lee replied that forty percent (40%) of an external 12 wall must be covered with green material in order to be considered a green wall. Of that 13 forty percent (40%), the area must include one hundred percent (100%) plants. Board 14 Member Flint recommended that this be further clarified. 15 16 Board Member Flint also addressed Article 135-110, Section B, which deals with 17 structured parking facilities. He cautioned that the proposed conditions for this type of 18 parking could potentially raise the cost of parking in freestanding garages, although he 19 did not oppose their incorporation into conditions when proposed for podium-style 20 buildings. He concluded that Section B should be rejected . Board Member Safaty 21 agreed , noting that the increased cost would be a significant burden when the City is 22 trying to promote development. 23 24 Vice Chair Berry observed that Article 135-110, Section B would require a developer 25 incorporating a freestanding parking garage to ensure that it can be retrofitted . He did 26 not feel this would have a significant impact on developers. 27 28 Board Member Keester-O'Mills proposed that the language regarding adaptive reuse be 29 softened to encourage retrofitting rather than require it. He also noted typos in this 30 section : "floor plat" should be changed to "floor plate," and on p.73 , "breath" should be 31 changed to "breathe." 32 33 Board Member Keester-O'Mills requested clarification of whether or not there would be 34 limitations or requirements if individual homeowners wished to replace all natural turf 35 with synthetic material. He expressed caution with the possibility of completely 36 eliminating living material. 37 38 Vice Chair Berry noted that synthetic turf must be one hundred percent (1 00%) 39 permeable. He seconded Board Member Keester-O'Mills' concern with replacing natural 40 material with all synthetic turf. Ms. Lee advised that there are pros and cons to this 41 strategy: synthetic turf would not require use of water, herbicides, or pesticides , while at 42 the same time synthetic grass would not provide carbon dioxide sequestration as living 43 material would. 44  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 9 1 Ms. Lee continued that the City had requested that synthetic turf be addressed in Code, 2 as there was currently no mechanism to control it. This would allow for provision of a 3 permeable surface. 4 5 Board Member Theisen stated that no environmentally sound plan includes artificial turf, 6 which is not significantly better than grass. Another option might be xeriscaping , which 7 features native plants that use very little water and sod , are drought-resistant, and 8 requ ire little maintenance and/or pruning . He described this option as preferable to 9 synthetic turf, which is a convenience rather than a green solution . 10 11 Ms. Lee noted that Code must address this type of turf in order to regulate it and apply 12 standards . It was suggested that additional solutions be studied to prevent the use of 13 one hundred percent (1 00%) synthetic turf. Ms. Lee pointed out that synthetic grass 14 would not count toward buffer requirements and requires the inclusion of living plant 15 material such as trees and shrubs. She did not know whether or not the material used to 16 make synthetic turf is recyclable . 17 18 Ms. Lee advised that it would be relatively easy for new construction to earn ten (10) 19 points under the Green Building Code. Board Member Safaty asked why these 20 standards were proposed if they are easy to meet. Ms. Moore explained that the City 21 sees new construction plans that could easily meet the ten (1 0) point requirement with 22 the add ition of amenities such as tankless water heaters. She did not believe the Green 23 Building Code would place a burden on new home construction , as many of its 24 requirements are also found in Florida Building Code. 25 26 Chair D'Arminio noted that there were typographical errors in Code Section 170-070.A, 27 wh ich refers to electric vehicle charging stations. 28 29 Chair D'Arminio continued that Article 50 refers to distance requirements from places of 30 worship or schools to bars, and suggested that the Code Section overseeing these 31 distances be addressed as well. Ms. Moore suggested this could be done as a separate 32 process in the future , as additional items cannot be added to the Amendments 33 presented at this time. 34 35 There was consensus that the concerns for Article 135 raised regarding parking 36 structures were valid and should be addressed if the Amendments are recommended 37 for approval. It was determined that the Board would vote on Article 135 Amendments 38 separately from the other Amendments presented . 39 40 Publ ic Comment 41 Ray Carrier, 2048 NE 6 Terrace , suggested that the Code rewrite include the idea of 42 allowing accessory dwelling units, specifying that they can be built in those single-family 43 residential areas with greater density. He pointed out that this would meet a number of 44 needs with in the commun ity, including the need to care for relatives , accommodate  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 10 1 caretakers, or rent vacation space. He concluded that this could also help protect the 2 solvency of single-family residences . 3 4 Motion made by Vice Chair Berry, seconded by Board Member Flint, to recommend 5 approval of Amendments to Articles 25 , 45, 50, 150, 155, and 170. In a roll call vote , the 6 motion passed 7-0 (unanimously) . 7 8 Motion made by Vice Chair Berry, seconded by Board Member Flint, to approve the 9 Amendments to Article 135, taking into effect the discussion from the Planning and 10 Zoning Board considering the cost burden to developers under Section B of 135-110. 11 12 Chair D'Arminio explained that his intent was for the separate motion to prevent this 13 concern from being overlooked . Ms. Moore assured the Board that Staff would consider 14 this issue further. The City Commission would also receive the meeting minutes at 15 which this issue was discussed . Vice Chair Berry added that Board Members may 16 attend the City Commission second reading of the Amendments, at which public 17 comment is permitted, if they wished to provide additional input. 18 19 In a roll call vote , the motion passed 7-0 (unanimously) . 20 21 VIII. Staff Comments 22 23 Ms. Moore thanked the Board Members for their discussion during the workshop prior to 24 tonight's meeting . Staff would reach out to them regarding potential dates for the 25 continuation of the workshop. 26 27 IX. Board Comments 28 29 Board Member Sterl complimented a recently approved waterfront apartment complex 30 on E 29 Street. Chair D'Arminio pointed out that because of the City's parking and 31 setback requirements , the building's footprint is on roughly six point five percent (6 .5%) 32 of the total land of the parcel. The project required forty-one (41) parking spaces for 33 fifteen (15) apartments . He felt this was an example of what should not happen under 34 Code. Vice Chair Berry noted that if the City's parking Code is modified in the future , the 35 developer will have an opportunity to build more units on the site . 36 37 X. Adjournment 38 39 Upon motion duly made and seconded , the meeting was adjourned at 9:07p.m . 40 41 [M inutes prepared by K. McGuire , Prototype, Inc.] 42 43 44 45  Wilton Manors Planning and Zoning Board February 10, 2020 Page 11 1 2 3 4 Date 5 6